Joseph Rued v. John Connolly, Acting Commissioner, Minnesota Department of Human Services

Petitioner, a reporter of child maltreatment and Father of the reported victim, sought a fair hearing for County determinations that no maltreatment occurred. The Minnesota Commissioner of Human Services determined that the Constitution was not another provision of law providing Petitioner with standing to challenge such County determinations for which Petitioner timely filed an appeal and served the Commissioner, with Petitioner’s then attorneys failing to serve the County. The Court of Appeals initially held such failing deprived the district court of subject matter jurisdiction and the Minnesota Supreme Court reversed. On remand from the Minnesota Supreme Court for determinations on an issue unraised in appellate proceedings (time limitations of personal service upon the County), the Court of Appeals determinatively relied upon the Minnesota Supreme Court’s remand order that explicitly did not determine such issues and asserted that there was no obligation for the County to preserve such waivable issues on appeal because the issue was not “ripe”—the same opinion relied upon the fact that such time limitation issues were raised by the County over three years prior and prior to the initial appellate proceedings. The Question Presented Is: Does the Fourteenth Amendment inhibit state courts, including appellate courts, from dismissing appeals of state executive agency determinations implicating protected rights on grounds that are so objectively unreasonable as to be demonstrably fraudulent and contradicted within the same opinion and authorities relied upon?